File Under: What Planet Do You Live On?

[Gary Sisco]

From the Independent (UK):

<>

And why should they not be? I thought that's what an allied force does, what?

Keep a stiff upper brain, dimwits.

[Nathaniel Catchpole]

Because as soon as any British troops get killed, the Labour government gets very, very tetchy about it's majority. Black Watch are getting pulled out early apparently for a start (well late, but earlier than the date that was eventually set). It's an alliance between a minority of the government (only a majority of parliament, at a stretch, with considerable help from the Tories) and the US, not the UK government in any realistic sense, and not a national alliance. So the actual responsibility on UK forces has to be kept to minimum - because if it ever looks like a proper alliance with mutual risk sharing, then we could see a vote of no confidence in Blair (there's already an impeachment movement going).

[Dr Dave]

Man, it must be work, being George W. Bush's only pen-pal.

[Darryl G. Thomas]

Blair seemed like a cool dude back in the day.

Hey guys, you notice the difference in reaction to deaths in Iraq in other countries compared to the US? Over there governments are toppled. Here? We paste yellow ribbon decals on our SUVs.

[james harrigan]

Darryl, what's your problem, man? I thought you'd gotten with the program and become a Republican.

remember:
Things in Iraq are going surprisingly well.
Freedom is on the march.
The terrorists/anti-Iraqi forces are losing and desperate, which is why they are fighting so hard.
The backbone of the resistance has been broken.
Major combat operations ended in May 2003.

Hey James, you'd make a damn fine Republican!

What do you say? I mean, let's face it, Darryl's just not showing the kind of commitment that he initially promised.

[Dr Dave]

Yeah, c'mon Darryl, you said you drank the Kool-Aid. Time to get with it! Jesus for Secretary of Defense! Wait, I'm sorry, Donald Rumsfeld IS my Saviour...

[Uli]

[Gary Sisco]

Nat -- You mean to say the utterly and completely committed Blair sent his troops off to war thinking they'd have a desert hang and no one'd get hurt or have to do any real fighting for any length of time?

Labor needs him like it needs a .50 cal round to the head. It'd be good for the party to get booted back into opposition again. Remind them, maybe, that that's supposed to be a Labor party's purpose in the first place. No, er, New Labor, me bleedin' arse.

[Nathaniel Catchpole]

Yeah, in fact I reckon that's probably the condition on which most of the battalions are there - no fighting. The initial success in places like Basra may have been because UK forces got the pick of the areas, or it may be that they pissed less people off when they got there, but there's no way any of them will be involved in prolonged fighting unless there's a terrorrist attack here (although there's a fake one that's just been "foiled" released by the Daily Mail at the same time as the Queen's speech introduces a big steaming pile of draconian legislation) - in which case things could go either way.

If they get pulled into serious fighting, either the parliamentary labour party will get rid of Blair on a "troops out" bid, or if it's around the election, we might see a big swing to the lib-dems, who are shit, but would result in a reduced majority. I doubt we'll see either a hung parliament or Labour in opposition unless there's a mass exodus of backbench MPs into a split. And everyone needs to remember that Labour in opposition means the Conservatives in government - which would, if it's possible, be worse. Although it's probably even less difference than Kerry and Bush as it stands.

The only way you'll see Labour go leftwards (even relatively), is if there's a split into another party - leaving the neo-con New Labour and a tiny Conservative party on one side, with some kind of leftish-Labour/Lib-Dem/Nationalist possibly Green, possibly Respect (SWP/MAB unpopular front) coalition on the other. Simple change of leadership will result in someone like Brown, or potentially Jack Straw getting in, which will just repeat the status quo without Blair's personal unpopularity (although Labour still thinks he's popular amongst voters, just not within the party or the media as far as I can tell).

[Gary Sisco]

Sometimes a taste of failure and loss can be the best possible outcome, politically, Nat. I can't imagine that everyday life in the UK, at this point, would be altered much if a Tory regime were to replace Blair's. Six of one, half a dozen of the other.

[Nathaniel Catchpole]

Me neither. But a Labour victory could mean a Tory split (or virtual shutdown) with the Lib Dems as the official opposition. Which might lead to lots of Labour defections/splits as well. A Tory victory would mean they'd be on the up, Labour wouldn't split because they'd then be a very large opposition party again, so there'd still be a pretense of them being on the left. It's more fun to see them all self-destruct than switch sides and get rejuvenated.

All conjecture anyway, Labour will win either way next election, would require a massive landslide (1997 proportions) for anything else to occur.

[Darryl G. Thomas]

Hey guys. My bad.

Hang in there Brits! You're fighting for our freedom!